exclusiv

True and I like GraphQL but in many cases your UI needs data in a way that isn't available on your existing endpoints. Ex: summary data / aggregations for reports or analytics. Or simple things like fullName on a user entity, a displayAddress, a display greeting based on their user group, you get the idea. You can do all of this on the frontend but it just becomes messier.

This is what I'm referring to.

So you still need to write some new graphql resolvers on the backend and update your graphql schema. Not much different from writing some new REST api endpoints or expanding an existing endpoint.

But if you use GraphQL then I agree on the benefit and approach still of having as much of your data logic on the backend. And with GraphQL you have a schema that is readily available, auto-documented and available for frontend devs to use for current and future components.

Which is better than having that logic on the frontend IMO.

Have not tried it yet but curious thanks for the info.

I kind of just shifted into Vue and then React after Angular 1.

Most of my team has never used Angular and the components available for React are so nice I'm a little hesitant to invest in Angular.

I also have yet to inherit an Angular codebase so I have to weigh the time investment.

I have an Angular 1 app I built in 2015 that's still in use today. Went back to it and it was refreshing in so many ways.

A lot of people really hated it but it's opinions and structure helped promote a more maintainable codebase. I don't miss tuning watchers and the digest cycle though.

All the React projects I've inherited are nightmares. I'm comfortable working on them but they are harder for junior and mid-levels to hop into.

The number of ways to do things in React is a benefit and a curse.

We had so much prop drilling early on. The idea that components should only have what they need is nice, but you need some data to flow to children. And when the UI needs to change on a prop drilled codebase, holy shit, refactoring is a major PITA.

Luckily we have some alternatives to avoid the prop drilling but it's so fragmented.

If something like Mobx was just part of React from the beginning, the ecosystem would be in better shape IMO.

I identify with a lot of the issues the author stated.

React is just at that place where you need a TON more discipline to produce quality code in a team environment.

And because of that, there will be a mountain of shitty codebases in React to inherit, cleanup and maintain over the next 5 years.

That being said, I'm still a big fan of React and Vue though.

> Some part of your organizations chaos is going to reflect in code, and honestly I'd rather it be in a big ball of frontend than in the data models, infrastructure, etc.

I disagree. I like my frontend to be as dumb as possible. It gets data and reacts to it as simple as possible. Seen too many frontends with a lot of data logic and it becomes extremely brittle, harder to test.

These are the ones where the frontend devs are getting data from the API and creating new structures, transforming it, conditionals everywhere, etc.

It requires way more discipline to ensure that frontend devs aren't recreating the wheel and writing duplicate code as the app and components evolve, and it's worse for larger codebases of course.

They need to build some new component and go - ok I got the data from the API and now I need to do the thing that's already been done by another frontend dev for another component because we've allowed the frontend to be responsible for transforming the data. But if they aren't aware of this, then you get a lot of dupe code.

Just have your backend API provide the contract. Setup resources/transformers as needed on the backend instead of littering the frontend with that logic.

> Since it was essentially a read model, it wasn’t the source of truth for any specific information

I agree. And luckily that was the case for them.

I've used strengthsfinder before (after hiring, haven't used it before) and it's helpful for team composition and for understanding who might be good AND also interested in certain things.

Not a huge sample size, but everyone has agreed on the output of their tests. Only in a few instances (like 1 of the strengths for a few people) were there surprises, (ex: Woo under Influencing) but they understood why it was a top strength and how it did make sense even though they wouldn't have chosen that for themselves if they were tasked with picking their top 5 strengths from the list instead of doing the test.

I don't like the personality tests at all. A strong team IMO should have a mix of personalities and strengths and I prefer to build teams based on just a few core values. From that approach, I've gotten a great mix of both personalities and strengths organically.

I could see maybe some teams using personality tests (ex: for sales) to architect a desired team type in a specific industry. Research is all over the place though on what's ideal. And can it be trusted as a hiring framework?

There are many other factors to consider. Let's say 5 specific personality traits perform the best in the aggregate in sales for one industry. But then people with those traits may be hard to retain. They may not get along with one another. They may create a toxic environment. There are too many things that are very hard to measure IMO to use that as your framework.

So I don't buy the personality test stuff in general. I suppose it may be a decent data point as your example of avoiding "assigning the wrong task to a person", but a strengths based approach makes more sense for that to me.

Could just have drugs be legal for those of age if they do them in private spaces.

1) Then you wouldn't have shady operations and drug cartels producing and selling drugs and the illegality, by nature, supporting said cartels

2) Jails wouldn't already be full

3) Cops and courts wouldn't have to spend so many resources trying to enforce the dumb laws.

That's crazy and that city is doomed.

My in-laws spend more than that but their home is worth more. They've owned it free and clear for like 20 years but they are getting out this year.

Their city used to be full of families, much higher values, lots of great local businesses and some big business headquarters. That's all gone and it's not desirable at all.

I disagree.

The local budget shouldn't change much from year to year, but when values go up, they are quick to reassess high on, many times, artificially inflated values. When values go down, then they aren't too quick to reassess accurately downward.

In this situation, you just end up displacing retirees which is not good.

I'm not talking about having special rules for retirees, just saying the politicians feast when home values skyrocket and cities need to have a reasonable balanced approach to be able to have great services and departments for the community, but not try to optimize for their budget.

So many great cities have been destroyed from high property taxes. They jack up prop taxes, then lose families and are left with mostly older citizens, and there's a breaking point and they leave.

Home values plummet along with property taxes. So what they thought might be good for the community ended up being a poor decision.

Also property taxes are not perfectly progressive. Only areas with nice homes have good schools.

Starlink took govt funds and is obligated to deliver 100/20 at a minimum.

I own 2 starlinks at different locations and I can tell you 1 of those locations is consistently MUCH under that.

That being said, I am pleased with starlink at one location as it absolutely blows away the next best available option.

Nothing wrong with it though. They have the rights to the tournaments and there's no obligation for the PGA to allow non-members in (with the exception of what they have setup for amateurs to compete in some tournaments)

Some of the tournaments, even being a PGA member you aren't entitled to play in. You have to earn exemptions or be at the top of the money list.

As a member of a youth sport league a long time ago, I was not allowed to participate in money tournaments even though I wanted to. I see no issue with guilds/clubs having rules. And I see no issue with some of the pros jumping ship to another league.

There are valid concerns with the PGA:

- how they share money

- the fact that they own the rights to the player's images/videos/etc

Those need to be addressed.

And I don't think banning players for doing other tournaments is the way to go, but I think it is within the right as their organization has had terms and rules for their members forever.

I wouldn't say it's a capitalism problem but more of the erosion of a free market.

Anything that is counter to a free market rewards unethical behaviors. But politicians don't need to be bought. It's just what has been tolerated. This is a great enabler and you can see this with the SEC as just one example.

Regulatory capture occurs [1] and the megacorps infiltrate. People want to get ahead and they hide behind these megacorps, many of which have unethical behavior pushed by the leadership, investors, their boss, and sometimes even condoned by in-house lawyers. If there is no risk to shareholder value and no risk of personal charges, they will do it.

We need some criminal charges levied and some extreme fines. Maybe just set the fines to equal the money they stash overseas? It HAS to grossly outweigh the economic gain from the behavior, so that it's a big hit to shareholder value. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Sanctions? Yes. Cold War

The idea of protests is grossly underestimating Putin and the regime.

> We need those folks to have information so they can push back.

They can't. And they won't. Nice in theory but it's 2022 and here we are. Nobody is pushing back at all, in any meaningful way over there.

That will probably change over time as Russia becomes more and more isolated from the world.

I'm sure the oligarchs are pissed at yacht seizures and banking discomfort too but so what? This is a valid tactic since they didn't attack a NATO member.

If they did, then they would be facing the same things that Ukrainian citizens are.

Russia flexes their might against their own citizens constantly and disrupts their quality of life. There's always going to be some that will be emboldened for the wrong reasons. But it doesn't make sense for nations to sit idly by.

The idea that citizens over there could organize with internet and actually accomplish any change is nonsense.

Product sells itself outside of enterprise though. I'm just saying that it is possible to have a product that sells itself, and reaches great success without having to have salespeople.

Maybe Word and Excel aren't the best examples, but I don't doubt they could have succeeded if they only gave it away to EDUs and had a base plan for consumers and a self-service enterprise plan. Microsoft had a foothold in desktop market so pushing Office and getting users to use it was easy. And once you try it, it does sell itself.

But I think Trello, Craigslist and Wikipedia are great product examples. You need not have a sales team to scale everything.

You can achieve that with a great product, great customer support, digital marketing and word of mouth.

Haha I think that's true. I wouldn't say HN is toxic but the pedantic nature of so many comments is exhausting.

And there are a lot of strongly opinionated engineers that can't imagine that tech they dislike or they aren't familiar with may actually be better at solving many other problems.

Everyone gets caught up in trying to be right, but some people have not yet realized how damaging that can be to their relationships. It may seem like it's not a big deal online, but that will carry over to your personal life.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said his father stressed to him that it wasn't enough to be right, one must be effective.

That stuck with me as a powerful reminder to try and focus on the effective part. It will preserve and build relationships and often surprise you in making you realize that when you try to explain something instead of insisting on it, you are either wrong or could be wrong.

> Reformed salesperson here, you're 1 for 4, and Trello really should only get half a point because they've given up massive swathes of their addressable market to others (Wrike, Asana, Monday).

Trello sold itself. Explosive growth. Great product. Whether they have given up market share is irrelevant.

Gmail had explosive growth. You use it, you're sold on how good it is.

I'm not sure why some of you think having a salesperson means a product doesn't sell itself. Everyone layers on sales to capture more of the market share at some point.

Doesn't matter if they have salespeople or not. It matters whether those salespeople can call up and have the other side already sold on the product. Because the product sells itself...

I'll submit Craigslist and Wikipedia as other options. Also Plenty of Fish.

Communities and knowledgebases can be built without salespeople.

Trello. Word. Excel. Gmail.

Acquisition cost is zero at this point - there are wait lists and no shortage of talented people from other countries that would love to go to Purdue or any other comparable school. They can also easily pull from the out of state basket. Also, you have to account for financial repercussions if they do nothing.

> There exists some tipping point at which the system could unravel, maybe not 200 students but some number of students.

Perhaps, but again 200 students is inconsequential to Purdue as I stated. They have the ability to replace instantly and they have a > $2.5 billion endowment.

The system would unravel due to overextension of loans and people deciding it's not worth it to take the debt on that they have been doing. That's the unravel risk. And it would hit the low tier schools anyway.

What Purdue or others with similar challenges cannot do, is nothing. Not everyone gives a shit about appeasing China. Maybe LeBron, the NBA and some other organizations care because it has been all about the $ for them. But things are changing. Women's Tennis is standing up. Biden making a statement regarding Olympics. Not many examples out there but they're becoming more frequent.

Those students are meaningless to Purdue financially. They can replace those students in a heartbeat.

That reputation is only viewed that way by a tiny number of nerds, typically with static language backgrounds that don't ship much code or product.

I added more value to a tech agency and their clients with PHP than several of the senior Java guys did combined. And they were talented. Just set in their ways and lacked a focus of getting things done and adding value.

They'd waste time overbuilding shit that nobody used because it was interesting to them, not that it would create value for the client or end-users.

Also, I took over several large Node projects built by hipsters and they are the messiest code bases I've ever seen. And I've inherited a lot of trash PHP ones over the years.

Regarding the concurrency thing with PHP - ReactPHP is very nice, PHP 7 and on performance gains were massive, and real-time (search, chat, etc) can be better handled by Algolia/Pusher/etc anyway.

The Node hype train had a great run. And I still like Node. But PHP is the language of getting shit done.

Nobody cares about convincing YOU; you made up your mind a long time ago and could care less about all the nice things in PHP 8, the performance improvements and the massive ecosystem and huge parts of the web still driven by PHP.

I think it's ok to notify an email thread and say something like "Based on our last discussion regarding ____ , Bob is going to _____ . Thanks in advance for setting that up for us @Bob"

But yeah, thanks in advance can be a very passive aggressive thing.

A more flexible alternative would probably be "appreciate your expertise in setting this up for us"

I had someone tell me on the phone and email - "I kiss the ground you walk on". I thought it was just weird and it caught me off guard on the phone the first time.

Candidly - your colleagues most likely don't appreciate it as you do, whether they know the meaning or not.

As I'm sure you're aware, in some countries, servitude is the greatest honor. But in many, it isn't; it signals 1) that you are lesser than or 2) you are very malleable person who may make a good fall person or dirty deed underling or 3) they don't believe your words and just think it's kind of creepy

I really appreciate that some countries consider it an honor, and I don't know where or who you work with, but there's a very good chance that your favorite valediction is not only underappreciated, but not appreciated at all.

Hope that's not the case but your closing comment sparked me to be candid about it for consideration.

I use cheers and I think it's more versatile.

- got your fire drill and I'm handling it... Cheers (don't worry about it)

- won your business, thank you so much... Cheers (celebrate)

- scheduled a meeting for next week. looking forward to talking to you... Cheers

To say thanks after everything seems odd to me. Kind of means nothing in many contexts.

Cheers at least reinforces your tone and personality (assuming that's how you are) in really any context and how you conduct business.

I still use thanks of course to be thankful, but almost always close with Cheers.

Maybe it's an effective filter. I use cheers too. If someone is too formal to enjoy cheers, then I probably don't want them as a client. I put out casual, easy-going and hard working. Cheers aligns.

Candidly, I think "Yours" is just weird. Maybe even kind of creepy? Just roll with cheers and forget about it!

I've been doing Cheers for a long time too. Nice to see it towards the top. I prefer a more casual friendly tone and I'm pretty sure I started using it after seeing someone from the UK sign off all emails like that.

So cheers!